open i

No one can deny the outstanding job UK and other European anti-GM advocates have done in creating doubts about this biotechnology. The greater challenge for those that have lead the vanguard, however, is that of credibility, once the realities of this biotechnology come to be generally appreciated.(430 words)

Genetically modified(GM) crops has now been available to, and widely used by, farmers in North America for almost ten years. And no serious or unanticipated concerns have arisen as a consequence. Under normal circumstances it might be reasonable to expect a year or two's delay in the adoption of such technology in Europe.

While it is tempting to blame the delay on the failure of the European Union to get necessary regulation in place, a general distrust of science since the BSE, mad cow, epidemic in the 1990's and the failure of those who develop the technology to anticipate opposition, these are factors that anti-GM advocates have been able to ferment rather the root cause.

Having raised the issue anti-GM advocates have been very skilful in providing the media with the kind of copy they seek and exploiting the weaknesses of retailers and others in the food industry. Every new concern they have raised has been credible enough to be believed and by the time refuting evidence is available, a new issue seems to have been raised.

While some opposition to genetically modified crops undoubtedly stems from vested interest, the majority is surely based on faith, an unquestioning belief that for some reason or other genetically modified crops are a threat to society. And as is often the case the more the faith is challenged the stronger it becomes.

This kind of unquestioning support is invaluable to any minority interest cause as it creates momentum which would otherwise not be available. The challenge is managing it, particularly when the cause has been either acknowledged or generally recognized as without validity. If the organizations are not able to control the throng of support, they are likely to lose their credibility in short order.

This is a challenge that organizations that have lead the opposition to the genetic engineering of crops are likely to be faced with sooner rather than later. They undoubtedly serve a useful purpose in a more general context in questioning societies attitudes towards its environment. It would, therefore, be unfortunate, if through over playing their anti-GM card, they destroy their credibility on other issues.

Having cried wolf so effectively on genetically modified crops, how effective are they likely to be if a real wolf appears at the door.

July 15, 2004